my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Once Upon A Time In Mexico Image Quality (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Once Upon A Time In Mexico Image Quality Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 09-12-2003 08:13 AM                        I just read the many very negative comments about the bad image quality in the review forum. I haven`t seen a 35mm print yet, but I screened the movie on our digital projectors (Barco) - it looked awesome. I am not exaggerating. It will be very interesting to see the prints in comparison.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-12-2003 08:24 AM                     Movies shot on film always look better when exhibited on film. Movies shot on video always look better when exhibited on video. I think you will be overly unimpressed with the 35mm prints.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 09-12-2003 12:16 PM                     Like I said in a previous thread, I felt as if this print looked terrific. The colors seemed to pop out of the screen, with very deep blacks. Again, the whole picture had a very warm feel to it, just like being in Mexico. We watched the film on one of our largest screens, and I did not see any noise or grain. Again, I think this was the look that Rodriguez intended. I remember Episode II having tons of noise in the image, especially in the dark areas. This print was immaculate by comparison. Am I the only one who felt the 35mm print looked this good? Am I delusional?? AJG  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 09-12-2003 02:02 PM                     Brad, I attended a digital demonstration at the National Film Theatre last year. all four possible combinations of originating and exhibiting, on film and digital were shown. All looked different, and I think I would be able to tell which I was watching. I would say the shot on digital, shown on film combination was the least satisfactory. What format was 'Once Upon A Time In Mexico' shot on?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 09-12-2003 04:10 PM                        Often, your impression of "sharpness" is a function of your viewing distance. 24P HDCAM can look pretty sharp when viewed from more than about 3 or 4 image heights away from the screen, often due to use of edge-enhancement. But if you sit toward the front of the theatre (1 to 3 screen heights), the lack of real image detail is obvious. The other usual telltale clues to video production are clipping of the highlights and aliasing artifacts. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/dCinema.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/students/filmtech/35hd24p.shtml In other words, if you look at some of these "films" from the booth or back of the theatre, they can look pretty good. But sit toward the front of the theatre, and they quickly fall apart for image quality.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 09-12-2003 08:16 PM                        Of course the trained eye can see those "watermarks" of the digital process, but film also has its own little imperfections even under the best conditions. But the general impression was amazingly good watching from a distance of approx. 2 screen heights.  |  IP: Logged Tim Turner Film Handler Posts: 87 From: Chula Vista, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 09-12-2003 08:23 PM                     The image quality looked alright, but some parts did look kinda degrated...I'm not sure if thats the right word for it. But what bothers me most is the sound quality !  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-13-2003 10:22 AM                     There really is NO valid point to "Once Upon A Time in Mexico" being videotaped (I will not say "filmed" or "digital-filmed" or any of that garbage in the case of this feature). It is a mainstream Hollywood feature with a mainstream Hollywood budget. Robert Rodriguez just has some George Lucas-like fascination and over-glorification of all things digital. The videotaping method would only be justified if this was a low-budget production or something meant for broadcast TV. Yes, many "trained eyes" can tell this was shot on video. Granted, digital post-processing techniques have come a long way in the last few years to mimic the film look. But you can still tell something is amiss. Here's the thing I think is really stupid. They're using the same Sony/Panavision 24P HDCAM setup used on "Episode II", correct? That system doesn't even support full blown 1080i HDTV! Talk about hamstringing the marketability of a movie for the long term! Prices have fallen on D-Theater D-VHS decks and HD-DVD will be here in another couple years. People will expect the image quality to at least address those formats. Digital video storage and playback systems are certain to improve in various aspects over the coming years and decades. Perhaps in as little as 10 years, the 1080i and 720p formats most common for HDTV may seem pretty crude when stacked up to what digital technology has to offer then. But guess what? Movies shot on 35mm will gracefully translate over to any video storage format developed in the next couple decades. If someone had the balls to shoot a movie in the 65mm/70mm process, that film would effectively be "future-proofed" perhaps for the rest of this century. If you have a major league movie budget, it is better to film in analog.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 09-13-2003 10:35 AM                    I agree with Bobby. This is not a matter of budget, a huge shooting ratio, super long takes, gonzo location shooting, small cameras, the desired look, abbreviated post production schedule or any of a myriad of good reasons to use video. This is because Rodriguez decided that HD is easier than film and is choosing to pretend that the results are just as good or better. Well, the emperor has no clothes and neither does Robert Rodriguez. John said: quote: 24P HDCAM can look pretty sharp when viewed from more than about 3 or 4 image heights away from the screen... That reminds me of the line in "Tootsie" where the director asks one of the camera operators how far back from her he can get. The operator suggests, How about Ohio?  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 09-13-2003 07:07 PM                     So what if this is big budget "Hollywood" movie? So what if it isn't designed for TV? So what if it isn't George Lucas? I like film just as much as anyone, but I can say as a student film maker, video is amazing to work with. Having instant playback of takes, easier editing, and quicker filmmaking in general is a great advantage. This is a case of the director just liking the flexibility digital offers. This reminds me of the use of color film in early Hollywood. Many felt that color should be reserved for only big budget, epic films. Eventually, this all changed and now people would complain if a film was not made in color. Episode II did worry me that shooting on video would leave the film looking like , but Mexico changed my mind because to me, it looked tremendous. For the record, I was sitting in the direct center of a 297 seat stadium theatre as well. AJG  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-13-2003 07:17 PM                     quote: Am I the only one who felt the 35mm print looked this good? Am I delusional?? Yes, you are delusional.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-13-2003 07:22 PM                     Just because it is easier doesn't make it better so far I have heard nothing but a liteny of image quality complaints from one location due to poor focus. (they have blue serries ISCO and never had a focus issue with any other title) so be it Video is cheap looks cheap sorry but the whole industry does itself a diservice when the standards of quality get lowered. By the way I have never heard of any complaints about a movie shot in Black and White  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-13-2003 08:21 PM                     quote: I like film just as much as anyone, but I can say as a student film maker, video is amazing to work with. Having instant playback of takes, easier editing, and quicker filmmaking in general is a great advantage. Have you ever heard of "Video Assist"? Most any major film production will have instant video playback to the film work they are doing. They are able to see how the take went without waiting for a day or two to view dailies. Most movies these days, even the low budget ones shot on film, are actually edited on video using an Avid or similar system and then the "final cut" is delivered to the lab for the acutal cutting of the O-neg. Maybe I should stress the point like this: let's say I am an investor who is looking to sink millions into a film as part of a multi-national partnership. I'm saavy with how video sales work. If this is a major release production with a budget in excess of $30 million or so, I'm damned sure gonna want the product to look good and play good in any form for decades to come. Most people I know who are into DVD will not buy a movie if it doesn't sport a 5.1 track. Give these "digital films" a few years into the HD-plugged-in market and consumers are going to be avoiding those movies because they look like shit on their plasma screens. Shooting in "analog" 35mm is far more forward looking for those marketing purposes if the budget is there to afford it. Basically, if you can afford to hire an A-list actor who isn't there working for scale out of charity, then there should be room in your budget to shoot the flick on film.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 09-14-2003 04:14 AM                        I still haven`t had time to look closely at a print, but I believe you all. That is why I created that topic. OK, poll: Who has actually seen this movie screened digitally? Tim doesn`t count since he confessed to me last night that he hadn`t actually watched the whole movie other than briefly from the porthole. I screened it twice on different screens and continue to be impressed with the image quality, especially the fine detail, like the wood structures on the guitars or the skin texture of peoples` faces.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 09-14-2003 04:35 AM                     The Friday Calender section of the Los Angeles Times had an article with the film's director and the two key Sony principals who designed the HD camera system in use. The director was over the top positive while the Sony people are promoting that it is another type of brush to paint the image.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.